To think it’s daft to make big life decisions based on WFH without checking it’s permanent?

[GoldenOmber]

My work used to be office-based. We’ve all been WFH since March 2020 because of government rules (not in England).

This week the government lifted that rule, and later that day our employers told us what the plans were to start bringing us back. This is pretty flexible - not starting for a month or two yet, will still allow a lot of WFH for people who want it (like 9 days a fortnight with one in the office). Most people are ok with this. Some people really aren’t.

Now we are having drama over email with a small but vocal group saying how angry/upset they are, because they have made big changes based around getting to WFH and it will now be difficult for them to go back at all. Even 1 day a fortnight starting in April. Changes like moving house far away from office; getting a dog and not wanting to leave the dog alone; selling car and not wanting to get public transport b/c germs (not just covid, all germs).

Work have ALWAYS said WFH was temporary though! I have some sympathy for how long it’s going to take you to commute from your new house in the middle of nowhere, but SURELY you’d factor that in when you bought it?

YABU - no, after 2 years of WFH working fairly well it was reasonable to expect it to continue without checking.

YANBU - yes, they should obviously have checked.

I just get jealous on these sorts of threads of all the lucky people who were able to stay in the safety of their own homes for as long as they have.

I don't think you can generalise. One of my friends did some remote working & will carry on, she's a detective so was also not safe in her home the whole time same for a GP friend.

Not unreasonable, OP. I live in west Wales. A friend who lived and worked in Bristol decided to move over this way , expecting to work from home permanently. They're now on the edge of a nervous breakdown because their assumption that this would be permanent turns out not to be true and they are required back in the office three days a week. They are now working out who they can stay with twice a week for the foreseeable future and who'll look after their newly acquired dog while they're away. They don't seem to have factored in rent/ payment for the mates helping them out. I can't see it ending well.

YANBU it really annoys me when people say they don’t want to go back due to the commute (which they did without complaining before)

plenty did not know any different though so such a change will have an impact.

YANBU it really annoys me when people say they don’t want to go back due to the commute (which they did without complaining before

Actually people did complain. A lot. Trains are expensive and unreliable. SWR and Southern were wrecked by strike action in the years before covid. It was already the case that my local railway station car park was fairly empty on a Friday. WFH was already a thing.

I remember a time when I had to get the train to work in an office 30 miles from home to do work I could have done perfectly well at home. I had to drive to a neighbouring town to catch the train. I remember waiting on that platform when it was freezing cold. On snowy days or days when the service for delayed for other reasons the train often wouldn’t turn up as it had been cancelled. Once I arrived at the destination I still had another 15 minute walk. Then after travelling all that way (feeling exhausted before I’d even logged on)I had to do a full days work. It was utter drudgery. I went through a time when I was trying to start a family with my husband when I had this job and I remember finally getting pregnant and one day at this office 30 miles from home going to the loo and discovering I was having a miscarriage and then having to go home early on the train. The journey seemed to take forever.

I dunno. I think the world of work is changing. The last two years have proven that plenty of people can work just as effectively from home as they can from an office. They are now making that point. Isn't is better to push for a better way of working than just to submissively go back to being a slave to the office? I think you're all being quite old fashioned, tbh. Not wrong, exactly, but old fashioned and timid. If people don't push for change based on everything we've learned then things will just slip back to where they were. Is that what we want?

I would say Yabu on this one. The other half chose to aim for home based working, has been wfh for about five years, and has everything planned around it. If their employer wanted them in the office more than once or twice a year it wouldn’t work (it’s two flights away and has never happened yet, but most jobs in the field are home based and have been since before covid).

IMO the employers calling people back into the office are just trying to resist inevitable change. It is more comfortable for them to actually see the workers working than to trust them. I hope those days are dying now and I will not work for an employer who does not offer me fully remote working. Hopefully employers will see the strength of feeling amongst their staff and move with the times.

I am much more productive WFH because my job involves a lot of thinking and I now don't lose an hour commuting, arrive frazzled and need to calm down for half an hour before I can work. Now I just go downstairs (usually earlier than I would have started previously) log on and get on with it with a clear brain. My productivity is sky high. Frankly everyone in my area could do the same and I'm aware there is a lot of push for it. We all spend our days on email and Teams anyway so where you plug in your laptop makes no difference. And the new joiners thing is crap too. We have onboarded several new people over the last two years with no problems at all. The value of the watercooler discussion is hugely overrated.

I WFH before covid but by concession. I have just accepted a new fully remote job. I would not have even applied had it not been remote.

@CoverYourselfInChocolateGlory

I dunno. I think the world of work is changing. The last two years have proven that plenty of people can work just as effectively from home as they can from an office. They are now making that point. Isn't is better to push for a better way of working than just to submissively go back to being a slave to the office? I think you're all being quite old fashioned, tbh. Not wrong, exactly, but old fashioned and timid. If people don't push for change based on everything we've learned then things will just slip back to where they were. Is that what we want?

My employer has actually stated that productivity has gone up since we’ve been working from home. I think there will always be the ones who take advantage of it and perhaps not pull their weight but it will become apparent over time if they don’t get tasks done

Personally, I think that employers are being bonkers for insisting that people go back into the office. Companies must be missing out on so much talent just because the perfect person for the job can’t upsticks and move 400 miles. Given how well Teams and Zoom works, office work in the main is needless.

@CoverYourselfInChocolateGlory

I dunno. I think the world of work is changing. The last two years have proven that plenty of people can work just as effectively from home as they can from an office. They are now making that point. Isn't is better to push for a better way of working than just to submissively go back to being a slave to the office? I think you're all being quite old fashioned, tbh. Not wrong, exactly, but old fashioned and timid. If people don't push for change based on everything we've learned then things will just slip back to where they were. Is that what we want?

Well, it's not a 'better way of working' for the organisation as a whole, is the organisation's point. So they're saying they're fine with some flexibility for us staff, up to and including 1 day a fortnight in the office and the rest at home for those who'd want that, but not changing people's formal arrangements so they're permanently WFH.

Plus I'm not sure what difference it would make. The permanently WFH people would still be expected in sometimes for in-person meetings, training etc (this does happen in many pre-pandemic WFH jobs too) - except then work would have to pay for their travel to the normal office location.

I'm mainly hoping that the angry/upset people don't cause SO much of a fuss that the organisation goes "fuck it, being flexible is clearly not going to work so everyone work your contracted hours at your contracted location" and everyone else loses out.

Cheesecakeandwineinasuitcase
That's terrible and I'm so sorry you had to go through that.

@DorothyZbornakIsAQueen

Agree OP. People who have moved house, or say, I can't go back to the office cos childcare, I pick the kids up everyday now etc. .

Our childcare is completely screwed now and we genuinely cannot go back to the after school club. They have changed the entrance criteria to give priority to NHS workers who want a full 5 day wrap around care place first, then other key workers for full place, then non-key workers. And the priority is also for the younger children from nursery age and up, then their siblings. They won't offer less than 5 days am and pm as they have had to cut the number of children due to social distancing and the bonkers bubbles. They have got enough parents paying the full whack, even if not every session is used, that they don't need to go back to a more flexible approach.

Meanwhile - so many local childminders went out of business during lockdown when parents could wfh that there is a serious shortage and again, they prioritise full time places first and youngest children over older ones.

DS is in year 5 and DH has been wfh but has to return to the office 2 days per week. I've always been in the office as a key worker. I'm having to cut my hours now to finish in time for DS 2 days a week as there is literally no other option. I'm the higher earner and it's costing us so much more than a childminder would, there just aren't any for his age let alone 2 evenings a week.

We are going back 2 days per week. This is the perfect compromise for me, but a few people have “lost their confidence” and are resisting any sort of return. But I don’t know anyone who has made changes which mean they can’t attend 2 days per week, as some sort of return was always on the cards

Can they work just as effectively though? I've certainly received very lax, second-class service from a formerly excellent company whose staff are working from home. Friends had been successfully using a letting agent for years until the staff started working from home, at which point it all fell apart.

I'm currently in dispute with a solicitor who told me should could complete a job in a month and five months later is stuttering into the closing straight. No outside agencies or delays involved, but she has had children at home with her (I can hear them) and can be impossible to contact for a week at a time. If she was in the office I might me able to speak to a colleague or assistant, but it's been a disaster for me. There will ne a number of suppliers/ agents/ companies I won't use again.

I think the pandemic has led to a change in work practices and a shift to more flexible and remote working. I haven’t moved since the pandemic hit but I like the idea that people could have more flexibility to live where they want to for example.

Well, it's not a 'better way of working' for the organisation as a whole, is the organisation's point. So they're saying they're fine with some flexibility for us staff, up to and including 1 day a fortnight in the office and the rest at home for those who'd want that, but not changing people's formal arrangements so they're permanently WFH.

what difference to the office will 1 day out of 10 make?

YANBU even though I wish to carry on WFH!

Can they work just as effectively though?

Personally I'm not sure wfh due & during a pandemic is a true representation of remote working.

I have worked from home since 1990, but freelance. The onus was always on me to get up at 3.00 am to reach a breakfast meeting at 0800, perhaps having driven 250 miles to wherever. I didn't have to do it more than two or three times a month, except Jan to April, when it was often twice a week . It was the price I paid willingly, because I went to very few meetings between June and September. All of life is about trade-offs.

@jessieminto - agree. People are assuming that things are like they were two years ago. As you say, the after school clubs and the childminders no longer exist. Bus services have been cut, as have trains. An employee can’t use childcare if there isn’t any childcare provision!

what difference to the office will 1 day out of 10 make?

Can coordinate meetings, training, new staff induction etc. that works best in person for that day I suppose?

Can coordinate meetings, training, new staff induction etc. that works best in person for that day I suppose?

so everyone on the same team needs to come in on the same day?

so everyone on the same team needs to come in on the same day?

I guess? I’m not the boss. Given they are no longer expected to come in on the other 9 out of 10 days (or whatever) though it doesn’t seem that inflexible to me.

No I don't think it's a big ask to come in 1 day out of 10 just seems a bit of a logistical nightmare trying to coordinate everyone for that same day.